Former House Speaker, Cllr. Jonathan Fonati Koffa and other defendants in the high-profile Capitol building arson case have pleaded not guilty to the indictments and charges read in open court.
On Monday, November 17, 2025, in Criminal Court A, presided over by Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie, the indictment was formally read aloud to the defendants.
The charges include criminal mischief, conspiracy, solicitation, intent to commit murder, aggravated assault, illegal possession of a firearm, release of destructive forces, reckless endangerment, and theft of property. This formal process, standard in Liberian courts, ensures each defendant is made aware of the specific allegations against them before substantive legal proceedings commence.
All defendants, including Ex-Speaker Koffa, pleaded not guilty to the charges. By doing so, they have officially contested the state's accusations, setting the stage for the selection of jurors--a process promptly requested by the state and granted by the judge.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Jury selection is scheduled to begin today, Tuesday, November 18, 2025, marking the resumption of the trial in full.
Some historical backgrounds
The current phase of the trial follows a series of legal challenges. On October 8, 2025, Associate Justice Jamesetta Howard-Wolokolie of the Supreme Court of Liberia issued a ruling directing Judge Willie to resume immediate jurisdiction over the case, thereby lifting a previous stay order that had paused proceedings.
The stay had been in place while the defense's petition for a writ of certiorari was under review.
The defense team, representing Koffa and others, had sought the writ in an effort to overturn Judge Willie's earlier denial of their motion to suppress certain evidence.
They argued that the admission of evidence allegedly obtained through illegal search and seizure, unauthorized analysis, and coerced confessions would violate constitutional protections--specifically referencing Article 21(b) of the 1986 Liberian Constitution and precedents such as Joshua Raynes et al. v. Republic of Liberia (1989) and Cece Netty Blanquett v. Government of the Republic of Liberia (2009).
The defense maintained that the exclusionary rule, a principle recognized in both Liberian and U.S. jurisprudence, should apply to deter governmental misconduct and protect judicial integrity. They argued that admitting unlawfully obtained evidence would result in a miscarriage of justice and undermine due process and equal protection as guaranteed by Article 20(a) of the Constitution.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
In their petition, the defense sought: A writ of certiorari and a review of the case records; Reversal of Judge Willie's ruling denying the motion to suppress evidence; Suppression of all evidence obtained via alleged illegal means; Reversal of the decision to set aside a disputed medical report; Return of property allegedly seized unlawfully, and Any additional relief deemed just and equitable
Prosecutors countered that the defense's petition was a delay tactic lacking legal merit, noting that the state had not yet presented its full case to the court.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Associate Justice Wolokolie denied the defense's petition for a writ of certiorari. The ruling, relayed by Supreme Court Clerk Cllr. Sam Mamulu, mandated Judge Willie to resume jurisdiction and proceed according to law, thereby lifting the stay order previously imposed on September 25, 2025.
This decision cleared the path for the trial to continue, dismissing the defense's request to suppress key evidence and signaling the court's intent to move the case forward without further procedural delays.
The defense and their clients reacted strongly to the Supreme Court's ruling, expressing disappointment and alleging that the refusal to suppress certain evidence amounted to an implicit endorsement of torture within the Liberian justice system.
They argued that by allowing allegedly coerced confessions and contested evidence to be admitted, the court was effectively sanctioning practices that violate fundamental rights, stating, "The court is now saying torture is legal in Liberia." -Edited by Othello B. Garblah.
